transfer to NYU after 1L vs. retake ? Forum

[lurkerspouse]

Collecting opinions on which scenario has better odds: doing well enough 1L at a top 40 east coast school to transfer to NYU, vs retaking the LSAT and trying for another cycle to get into NYU? [Original LSAT 170; GPA 3.6; non-trad; non-URM. Waitlisted at NYU.]

[Clemenceau]

You're going to get only one answer. Retake.

[Dcc617]

Collecting opinions on which scenario has better odds: doing well enough 1L at a top 40 east coast school to transfer to NYU, vs retaking the LSAT and trying for another cycle to get into NYU? [Original LSAT 170; GPA 3.6; non-trad; non-URM. Waitlisted at NYU.]

Obviously retake. You can improve your score by the point or two necessary.

[PeanutsNJam]

retake

[cavalier1138]

Retake. You cannot assume that you will do well enough to transfer to anywhere, let alone NYU.

[Nachoo2019]

cmon man. This should be self explanatory. I'm what world does finishing close to the top of your class at a T1 law school seem easier than a couple more points on the LSAT?

[acr]

Retake

Transferring to NYU after 1L is possible, but not exactly an optimal outcome. It'll run you like 200K

[bmathers]

Doesn't NYU average your test scores for multiple takes? I'm almost positive that they are one of the few schools who still do.

[pittsburghpirates]

You're going to get only one answer. Retake.

[Burlington4174]

Doesn't NYU average your test scores for multiple takes? I'm almost positive that they are one of the few schools who still do.

NYU claims it does, but it almost definitely does not. It would put NYU at a severe disadvantage compared to its peer schools for the purposes of the US News & World Report rankings. NYU cannot afford not to accept a person with a 165 and 173 because they treat the applicant as though they have one 169 when Columbia, Chicago, and Penn are just ignoring the lower score. Remember, only the highest score gets reported to US News.

[Tempo]

Doesn't NYU average your test scores for multiple takes? I'm almost positive that they are one of the few schools who still do.

NYU claims it does, but it almost definitely does not. It would put NYU at a severe disadvantage compared to its peer schools for the purposes of the US News & World Report rankings. NYU cannot afford not to accept a person with a 165 and 173 because they treat the applicant as though they have one 169 when Columbia, Chicago, and Penn are just ignoring the lower score. Remember, only the highest score gets reported to US News.

Yeah I had a 166 and 171 with a 3.7 and I got into NYU. I doubt they do.

[lolRCscrewyou]

Depends on how confident you are about how well you will do in law school. A lot of people on here will tell you to re-take, which is certainly an option and will say how hard it will be to get top in your class and is also true. However, if you have already been a good student it can be reasoned that that trend will continue. You had 3.6. To be blunt, you would have to do better than that to try and transfer.

Bottom line: do the option you are more confident in yourself with. If you're confident you will obtain a high GPA, try transferring. If you are more confident you can get a couple of more points on the LSAT, do that. Don't waste your time taking the LSAT again if you are 100% sure you wont improve, but also don't gamble on your a transfer if you aren't very confident in the GPA you will get.

[Sprout]

Depends on how confident you are about how well you will do in law school. A lot of people on here will tell you to re-take, which is certainly an option and will say how hard it will be to get top in your class and is also true. However, if you have already been a good student it can be reasoned that that trend will continue. You had 3.6. To be blunt, you would have to do better than that to try and transfer.

Bottom line: do the option you are more confident in yourself with. If you're confident you will obtain a high GPA, try transferring. If you are more confident you can get a couple of more points on the LSAT, do that. Don't waste your time taking the LSAT again if you are 100% sure you won't improve, but also don't gamble on your a transfer if you aren't very confident in the GPA you will get.

This is shitty advice. Tons of people are "confident" they will do well in law school because of previous performance in school. Law school is not undergrad. There is no way to predict aptitude on law school exams and general class rank until you have taken a law school exam. Of course, the safe choice is to retake. Obviously OP should weigh options and do what they choose to do, but I disagree with advice telling a 0L to decide this based on what they are more "confident in themselves" with.

ETA: The bolded is true. I just have a hard time with the idea someone is "sure" they won't improve on the LSAT until they've maxed out at the same score. But lolRCscrewyou is definitely right about not gambling on a transfer if you aren't confident ab LS GPA. (Sorry lolRC, typed this out before reading your whole post)

[lolRCscrewyou]

Depends on how confident you are about how well you will do in law school. A lot of people on here will tell you to re-take, which is certainly an option and will say how hard it will be to get top in your class and is also true. However, if you have already been a good student it can be reasoned that that trend will continue. You had 3.6. To be blunt, you would have to do better than that to try and transfer.

Bottom line: do the option you are more confident in yourself with. If you're confident you will obtain a high GPA, try transferring. If you are more confident you can get a couple of more points on the LSAT, do that. Don't waste your time taking the LSAT again if you are 100% sure you won't improve, but also don't gamble on your a transfer if you aren't very confident in the GPA you will get.

This is shitty advice. Tons of people are "confident" they will do well in law school because of previous performance in school. Law school is not undergrad. There is no way to predict aptitude on law school exams and general class rank until you have taken a law school exam. Of course, the safe choice is to retake. Obviously OP should weigh options and do what they choose to do, but I disagree with advice telling a 0L to decide this based on what they are more "confident in themselves" with.

But it's better advice to say "Hey man, we know your LSAT score can drop, but go ahead and pay for it all over again just to see what happens". Uhh, no. There's day of testing circumstances can be so unpredictable as well: are you going to be sick? Is a close one going to pass away before your test? Is there going to be a logic game that absolutely destroys you? Are you going to randomly get bowel issues during the test? Don't even try with the "LSAT is the safe choice", so many variables can occur that day that it warrants hesitation for retakes.

It's the best advice you can get: do whatever you feel you will do better at, no matter how much TLSers get themselves off on using the word "retake". A 170 is a strong score. If anything, take time off to get some work experience in a related field to boost your resume and open yourself up to a more interesting p.s.

Edit: Thanks for your edit, most appreciated.

[oidsedidy]

Depends on how confident you are about how well you will do in law school. A lot of people on here will tell you to re-take, which is certainly an option and will say how hard it will be to get top in your class and is also true. However, if you have already been a good student it can be reasoned that that trend will continue. You had 3.6. To be blunt, you would have to do better than that to try and transfer.

Bottom line: do the option you are more confident in yourself with. If you're confident you will obtain a high GPA, try transferring. If you are more confident you can get a couple of more points on the LSAT, do that. Don't waste your time taking the LSAT again if you are 100% sure you won't improve, but also don't gamble on your a transfer if you aren't very confident in the GPA you will get.

This is shitty advice. Tons of people are "confident" they will do well in law school because of previous performance in school. Law school is not undergrad. There is no way to predict aptitude on law school exams and general class rank until you have taken a law school exam. Of course, the safe choice is to retake. Obviously OP should weigh options and do what they choose to do, but I disagree with advice telling a 0L to decide this based on what they are more "confident in themselves" with.

But it's better advice to say "Hey man, we know your LSAT score can drop, but go ahead and pay for it all over again just to see what happens". Uhh, no. There's day of testing circumstances can be so unpredictable as well: are you going to be sick? Is a close one going to pass away before your test? Is there going to be a logic game that absolutely destroys you? Are you going to randomly get bowel issues during the test? Don't even try with the "LSAT is the safe choice", so many variables can occur that day that it warrants hesitation for retakes.

It's the best advice you can get: do whatever you feel you will do better at, no matter how much TLSers get themselves off on using the word "retake". A 170 is a strong score. If anything, take time off to get some work experience in a related field to boost your resume and open yourself up to a more interesting p.s.

Edit: Thanks for your edit, most appreciated.

Every "day of testing circumstance" you listed (other than a LG question that absolutely destroys you- but this would never happen to someone whose baseline is 170, fwiw) is equally applicable to the day you take each of your doctrinal exams. No offense, but I am assuming this advice is coming from a 0L- you are in far greater control of the outcome of your LSAT than any 1L exam you will take in law school. Furthermore, as was mentioned by a previous poster, there is little to no correlation between undergrad performance and 1L performance. TLSers are not getting off by encouraging OP to retake- they are likely speaking from the uniquely awful experience of having studied for and taken 1L exams. No one should even enter law school with the expectation that because your LSAT happens to be 10 points or so above 75th percentile at your "mediocre school" that this will automatically translate into stellar grades. And to emphasize an earlier point made by another poster, transfers do not get money. Retake is the only reasonable answer here.

Edit: I confirmed my initial suspicion. lolRCscrewyou- you cannot understand the misery of the 1L exam bell-curve until you have experienced it first-hand. I know too many people with 3.8 and higher from UG who are in the bottom half at my school- your advice is well-intentioned, but as you will find out soon enough it's flawed (although I certainly hope you and OP continue to have excellent grades in law school- just cannot count on it despite having done well all your life).

[lolRCscrewyou]

Depends on how confident you are about how well you will do in law school. A lot of people on here will tell you to re-take, which is certainly an option and will say how hard it will be to get top in your class and is also true. However, if you have already been a good student it can be reasoned that that trend will continue. You had 3.6. To be blunt, you would have to do better than that to try and transfer.

Bottom line: do the option you are more confident in yourself with. If you're confident you will obtain a high GPA, try transferring. If you are more confident you can get a couple of more points on the LSAT, do that. Don't waste your time taking the LSAT again if you are 100% sure you won't improve, but also don't gamble on your a transfer if you aren't very confident in the GPA you will get.

This is shitty advice. Tons of people are "confident" they will do well in law school because of previous performance in school. Law school is not undergrad. There is no way to predict aptitude on law school exams and general class rank until you have taken a law school exam. Of course, the safe choice is to retake. Obviously OP should weigh options and do what they choose to do, but I disagree with advice telling a 0L to decide this based on what they are more "confident in themselves" with.

But it's better advice to say "Hey man, we know your LSAT score can drop, but go ahead and pay for it all over again just to see what happens". Uhh, no. There's day of testing circumstances can be so unpredictable as well: are you going to be sick? Is a close one going to pass away before your test? Is there going to be a logic game that absolutely destroys you? Are you going to randomly get bowel issues during the test? Don't even try with the "LSAT is the safe choice", so many variables can occur that day that it warrants hesitation for retakes.

It's the best advice you can get: do whatever you feel you will do better at, no matter how much TLSers get themselves off on using the word "retake". A 170 is a strong score. If anything, take time off to get some work experience in a related field to boost your resume and open yourself up to a more interesting p.s.

Edit: Thanks for your edit, most appreciated.

Every "day of testing circumstance" you listed (other than a LG question that absolutely destroys you- but this would never happen to someone whose baseline is 170, fwiw) is equally applicable to the day you take each of your doctrinal exams. No offense, but I am assuming this advice is coming from a 0L- you are in far greater control of the outcome of your LSAT than any 1L exam you will take in law school. Furthermore, as was mentioned by a previous poster, there is little to no correlation between undergrad performance and 1L performance. TLSers are not getting off by encouraging OP to retake- they are likely speaking from the uniquely awful experience of having studied for and taken 1L exams. No one should even enter law school with the expectation that because your LSAT happens to be 10 points or so above 75th percentile at your "mediocre school" that this will automatically translate into stellar grades. And to emphasize an earlier point made by another poster, transfers do not get money. Retake is the only reasonable answer here.

Edit: I confirmed my initial suspicion. lolRCscrewyou- you cannot understand the misery of the 1L exam bell-curve until you have experienced it first-hand. I know too many people with 3.8 and higher from UG who are in the bottom half at my school- your advice is well-intentioned, but as you will find out soon enough it's flawed (although I certainly hope you and OP continue to have excellent grades in law school- just cannot count on it despite having done well all your life).

I appreciate the confirmation of your suspicions a.k.a. stalking my past posts, hopefully they made you feel better.

Anyways, OP, all you're going to get here is retake advice and I'm assuming that won't change. While I don't think it's necessary with your already high score, evidently my opinion doesn't count given I am a 0L. Your only real objectionable options are to try and transfer, retake, or get work experience. No one on TLS knows you so neither I or anyone else can give you adequate advice as we don't know your life or circumstances. Think about it hard and do what YOU believe is best for you, not what anyone else thinks it is.

I've said my peace. Best of luck for whatever choice you make.

[cavalier1138]

But it's better advice to say "Hey man, we know your LSAT score can drop, but go ahead and pay for it all over again just to see what happens". Uhh, no. There's day of testing circumstances can be so unpredictable as well: are you going to be sick? Is a close one going to pass away before your test? Is there going to be a logic game that absolutely destroys you? Are you going to randomly get bowel issues during the test? Don't even try with the "LSAT is the safe choice", so many variables can occur that day that it warrants hesitation for retakes.

It's the best advice you can get: do whatever you feel you will do better at, no matter how much TLSers get themselves off on using the word "retake". A 170 is a strong score. If anything, take time off to get some work experience in a related field to boost your resume and open yourself up to a more interesting p.s.

Edit: Thanks for your edit, most appreciated.

No one is saying that a 170 isn't a strong score. But evidently, this person wants to go to a school where 170 wasn't quite high enough to get them in. And the only good option in that scenario is a retake (or learning to be happy with a different school).

The advice you gave regarding 1L performance is absolutely terrible. In order to transfer to any HYSCCN school, you need to place at the absolute top of your class. Confidence is not a good indicator of whether that will happen, because most people are confident that they'll be at the top of their class until they discover that they aren't.

Confidence doesn't mean shit in this scenario. Past data all show that it is far, far easier to raise your LSAT score 2-3 points than it is to guarantee top performance at any law school.

[reasonable_man]

Depends on how confident you are about how well you will do in law school. A lot of people on here will tell you to re-take, which is certainly an option and will say how hard it will be to get top in your class and is also true. However, if you have already been a good student it can be reasoned that that trend will continue. You had 3.6. To be blunt, you would have to do better than that to try and transfer.

Bottom line: do the option you are more confident in yourself with. If you're confident you will obtain a high GPA, try transferring. If you are more confident you can get a couple of more points on the LSAT, do that. Don't waste your time taking the LSAT again if you are 100% sure you won't improve, but also don't gamble on your a transfer if you aren't very confident in the GPA you will get.

This is shitty advice. Tons of people are "confident" they will do well in law school because of previous performance in school. Law school is not undergrad. There is no way to predict aptitude on law school exams and general class rank until you have taken a law school exam. Of course, the safe choice is to retake. Obviously OP should weigh options and do what they choose to do, but I disagree with advice telling a 0L to decide this based on what they are more "confident in themselves" with.

But it's better advice to say "Hey man, we know your LSAT score can drop, but go ahead and pay for it all over again just to see what happens". Uhh, no. There's day of testing circumstances can be so unpredictable as well: are you going to be sick? Is a close one going to pass away before your test? Is there going to be a logic game that absolutely destroys you? Are you going to randomly get bowel issues during the test? Don't even try with the "LSAT is the safe choice", so many variables can occur that day that it warrants hesitation for retakes.

It's the best advice you can get: do whatever you feel you will do better at, no matter how much TLSers get themselves off on using the word "retake". A 170 is a strong score. If anything, take time off to get some work experience in a related field to boost your resume and open yourself up to a more interesting p.s.

Edit: Thanks for your edit, most appreciated.

Every "day of testing circumstance" you listed (other than a LG question that absolutely destroys you- but this would never happen to someone whose baseline is 170, fwiw) is equally applicable to the day you take each of your doctrinal exams. No offense, but I am assuming this advice is coming from a 0L- you are in far greater control of the outcome of your LSAT than any 1L exam you will take in law school. Furthermore, as was mentioned by a previous poster, there is little to no correlation between undergrad performance and 1L performance. TLSers are not getting off by encouraging OP to retake- they are likely speaking from the uniquely awful experience of having studied for and taken 1L exams. No one should even enter law school with the expectation that because your LSAT happens to be 10 points or so above 75th percentile at your "mediocre school" that this will automatically translate into stellar grades. And to emphasize an earlier point made by another poster, transfers do not get money. Retake is the only reasonable answer here.

Edit: I confirmed my initial suspicion. lolRCscrewyou- you cannot understand the misery of the 1L exam bell-curve until you have experienced it first-hand. I know too many people with 3.8 and higher from UG who are in the bottom half at my school- your advice is well-intentioned, but as you will find out soon enough it's flawed (although I certainly hope you and OP continue to have excellent grades in law school- just cannot count on it despite having done well all your life).

I appreciate the confirmation of your suspicions a.k.a. stalking my past posts, hopefully they made you feel better.

Anyways, OP, all you're going to get here is retake advice and I'm assuming that won't change. While I don't think it's necessary with your already high score, evidently my opinion doesn't count given I am a 0L. Your only real objectionable options are to try and transfer, retake, or get work experience. No one on TLS knows you so neither I or anyone else can give you adequate advice as we don't know your life or circumstances. Think about it hard and do what YOU believe is best for you, not what anyone else thinks it is.

I've said my peace. Best of luck for whatever choice you make.

You said your piece. Which was based on pure speculation because you've never taken a law school exam. At a top 40 school almost everyone will have been a "good student" before. And 90% of those previously good students will fail to be in the top 10% of the class at the end of the year. Why? Because law school testing and grading are very different than undergrad and the curve is designed to hurt, not help you in law school.

Your advice to op is so bad that I have to wonder if you just posted it for the hell of it.